As a Yale graduate, I am ashamed of this type of worthless litigation.

3:52 pm January 4, 2008

Government Attorney wrote:

There is absolutely no merit to this lawsuit. Presumably they are seeking to hold Yoo liable under a Bivens theory. This requires a constitutional violation in which Yoo was personally invlved and for which he does not enjoy qualified or absolute immunity. I fail to see how writing legal opinions as a DOJ lawyer can be the basis for such a claim. This is pure politicized, legal garbage. Just what Yale excels at!

3:53 pm January 4, 2008

partial observer wrote:

after the koh deanship, what credibility will yls have left?

4:05 pm January 4, 2008

DBL wrote:

As an alumn (of YGS not YL) I am embarrassed by this case. It's really too bad that Rule 11 was gutted a few years ago - Prof. Yoo should be able to recover his legal fees in defending this frivolous suit, the only purpose of which is to harass Yoo and attract publicity for the plaintiffs' political agenda.

4:06 pm January 4, 2008

Bob Chi town wrote:

Yale, ACLU, etc. etc. never fail to take the opportunity to show who and what they really are, i.e. anti American to the core.

4:08 pm January 4, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

It's a publicity stunt - they ask for a declaratory judgment, damages in the amount of one dollar, and attorneys' fees and costs. It just goes to show: any idiot with a word processor and the filing fee can start a lawsuit, with little or no fear of adverse consequences.

4:14 pm January 4, 2008

R. D. wrote:

The settlement should be $1 and one year at Guantanamo for Yoo.

4:17 pm January 4, 2008

Lefty wrote:

Yes, let’s have former Executive branch officials be held personally liable for damages for decisions made in the wake of 9/11, which was an “inside job.” And let's hold the Telcos liable for damages for turning records over to the intelligence agencies in the wake of 9/11. And let’s put on the front page of the NYT all of the secret surveillance strategies used by our intelligence services. And let’s put a special prosecutor on the tail of any executive-branch official, like John Yoo, who takes actions that are inconsistent with the wishes of anti-war Democratic legislators. And let’s drum out of the Democratic party any Democrat who does not oppose the Iraq War. And let’s portray our troops as a bunch of losers and misfits who couldn’t find a job in the private sector. And let’s put Abu Ghraib on the front page for months on end (so that there now are 4.9 million Google hits for the term). And let’s continually repeat that Iraq was invaded to secure oil for the U.S. And let’s ignore the progress that is finally being made in Iraq. And let’s posit a moral equivalence between the Islamofascist Terrorists and the Christian Conservatives in this country. And let’s give all captured terrorists access to our federal courts and the full panoply of due process protections that our citizens receive. And let’s take no action to strengthen the control of our borders. If we can do all of that, maybe the U.S. will lose this phony “War on Terror” and be humiliated sufficiently so that it ceases its consistent historical practice of exploiting other countries and their citizens. America is to blame for 99.9 percent of the world’s ills, folks, and our citizens need to accept that!

4:20 pm January 4, 2008

Learned Disciple wrote:

Read the complaint before commenting. Knee jerk responses to the idea of suing Yoo do not advance your argument. Embarrassment is not a legal standard for dismissal.

Having read the complaint, I think the relationship to Yoo is too attenuated to support the suit. A similar suit against Rumsfeld, on the other hand, might be possible. Although there is that pesky immunity problem.

4:22 pm January 4, 2008

lyman hall wrote:

Its the typical political campaign via the courts: ignore all precedent, keep filing suits everywhere in all different flavors and assume that some court somewhere will eventually rule in your favor. Hard to find a better place to hope for a win than the NDCal as backstopped by the Ninth Circuit; so the loss may only occur at the Sup Ct level, and by the time there will be a new Dem administration with a new AG and Solicitor General deciding not to appeal.

4:25 pm January 4, 2008

RMF Denver wrote:

Apparently Rule 11 isn't recognized in New Haven. I hope Freiman has good insurance.

4:27 pm January 4, 2008

salharmonic wrote:

Hey Lefty, do you have any original thoughts or is all just boilerplate looney left cliches, (I think you left out Enron).

4:32 pm January 4, 2008

Go Huskies! wrote:

CT in the house....

4:33 pm January 4, 2008

A.U. Grad wrote:

Glad I went to American. It's easier to get into, and apparently less hazardous to your mental health, judging from this crazed lunatic lawsuit. Perhaps it's best that John McCloy is dead now, else some Yale grad would sue him for the WWII internment memo(s) he did for FDR.

4:34 pm January 4, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

shouldn't Yalies be proud that their professors will go to the mat for convicted terrorists?

4:37 pm January 4, 2008

Scott wrote:

this attorney should be thrown in the nearest CIA Dungeon for his treasonable action in offering any assistance to the dirty bomb terrorist...I bet if he lived during 1942 he would have represented the Japanese government in a lawsuit for to recover damages for the sinking of the four Japanese carriers at the battle of Midway...

4:45 pm January 4, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

that's sarcasm, right?

4:51 pm January 4, 2008

Osama Bin-Laden wrote:

I would like to personally thank Mr. John freiman for advancing our cause so...legally!

4:52 pm January 4, 2008

Scott wrote:

not sarcasm - the Japanese just had bad timing - had they waited until 2003 to blow up Pear Harbor members of the legal profession would have been crawling from the woodwork wanting to prosecute the U.S. military for "war crimes" like sinking Japanese ships without warning, interrogating Japanese spies...bombing Tokyo...Tojo must be kicking himself for not waiting...if this attorney loves these terrorists so much he should move to one of their countries and see what happens when he tries to sue one of their officials...

4:54 pm January 4, 2008

Jack Smight wrote:

The US only sunk one Japanese carrier during the Battle of Midway. Japanese crews chose to abandon the other three carriers and scuttled those ships themselves.

5:00 pm January 4, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

the lawyers coming up with these theories are either deranged or in some strange sort of thrall to the terrorists-what other explanation can one come up with? siding with the enemy (convicted, not some innocent goatherd turned in by a rival tribesman as is the typical line) in wartime-looking at his background, I can't see one thing that would make me credit him on issues of national security over the first panhandler I will walk by as I leave the office this evening.

5:01 pm January 4, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

don't forget-this same type of lawyer would happily file anything to screw over actual american soldiers and prevent recruiters from going on campus-to him, 7th century throwback terrorists are much more appealing.

has anyone ever heard of any of these "pro bono" white shoe firms representing an american soldier-we have many charged right now. if they were alleged to have blown up american soldiers, these types would be salivating to represent them.

5:52 pm January 4, 2008

KDM wrote:

Sounds like we should ask those illustrious graduates of Yale Law, Bill and Hill, whether they support the suit. Here's their chance to capture the Blame America First vote and get back on track to the Democratic nomination.

5:53 pm January 4, 2008

Clever wrote:

Elsewhere on this blog, the subject of the personal appearance of lawyers has been raised. Reluctantly, but in line with the spirit of that other discussion, I must say that Mr. Freiman's photo, especially when viewed in the context of his suit against Mr. Yoo, suggests that he is clever, and that he views himself as very clever. Cleverness is what comes through. If I ever want a clever attorney, he certainly would be high on the list. Unfortunately, cleverness is not an attribute that I value in an attorney.

6:01 pm January 4, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

I like that "clever" statement. he's not loyal. he's not decent. he would view a member of the military with the same degree of esteem as he would view something foul he found on the sole of his shoe after a walk in the park. instead, he's clever.

6:24 pm January 4, 2008

defend the terrorists wrote:

It's all Bush's fault that Islamists have been murdering others and each other for centuries. Bush also needs to be impeached for the causing the death of the dinosaurs. Bush is also at fault for not preventing the first bombing of the WTC and all the other terrorist attacks around the world that occured during the Clinton administration. Clinton, the paragon of lawyer integrity, was too busy getting a blow job to deal with terrorism. Bush should have known that and should have done something about terrorism.

Let's see a little Rule 11 and 28 USC 1927 action in Yoo's Rule 12 motion! In fact, Yoo might do well to object to Freiman's motion to be admitted pro haec vice. Filing a meritless suit does not bode well for future practice before the court.

7:23 pm January 4, 2008

reasonable man wrote:

are none of you troubled by what has been done at guantanamo? i understand your objections to this specific suit, but i am very concerned by decisions of a government that would imprison men on such flimsy evidence, with little or no review. from your responses i gather that you do not share these concerns, which i find puzzling.

7:36 pm January 4, 2008

Agree with reasonable man wrote:

i am troubled and angry and melancholy and pissed off about what has been done and is still being done at guantanamo. weren't most of these guys given up by competing warlords? i have no confidence in their guilt (made easier by the fact they haven't been charged with anything); and I sure don't think what we did to padilla is acceptable. it is not the american way, altho evidently yoo's view of life is defined by Fox's gung-ho cowboy program '24.' I think the lawsuit doesn't stand a chance, but the debate it encourages is heartening.

8:44 pm January 4, 2008

KJ wrote:

This is really incredible to hear as I just finished reading Jack Goldsmith's account on the Bush administration earlier days post-9/11 and about done with Charlie Savage's Takeover. This is really, wow, surprising.

9:51 pm January 4, 2008

M M wrote:

While this lawsuit is going nowhere, all you bright lawyers in the house should read Goldsmith's views of Yoo's legal acumen and ask yourself what legal BS he came up with that caused a bunch of conservative Republican DoJ and FBI senior officials to threaten to resign. And remember, Goldsmith agreed with Yoo and the other neocons from a policy perspective.

You can find any dumb Yale lawyer to file a frivolous lawsuit and you can find any dumb Yale lawyer to justify holding people indefinitely without ever charging them, using spanish Inquisition torture techniques last used against US soldiers by the Japanese in WWII, and warrantless wiretaping even BEFORE 9 11 among other unconstitutional and Un-American acts. Hide your legal arguments under state secrets and don't allow the sitting Attorney General and Gang of Four in Congress from seeking Constitutional law counsel (their sworn to secrecy anyway). Sounds more like Kafka than America.

10:13 pm January 4, 2008

fido wrote:

Send in "judge" Mucasey (or any Freisler on hand).

11:09 pm January 4, 2008

HLS wrote:

It's White Guy Male Pattern Baldness Syndrome GONE WILD. What a putz.

11:57 pm January 4, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

I have a hard time getting upset over Guantanamo (as opposed to Abu Ghraib, which was more a case of Lord of the Flies than government policy). While there may be a handful of exceptions, any non-Afghani in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was akin to a European in Madagascar in the early 1700s -- the presumption must be they were up to no good, because there was no good reason to be there voluntarily unless you were sympathetic to the Taliban.

8:35 am January 5, 2008

M M wrote:

11:57, that's one heck of a legal theory. So by that theory any American in Iran should be arrested as a spy (and now that Yoo/Addington/Cheney have given states the right to torture) and waterboarded until they confess. And read of the the specifically approved enhanced interogation techniques that were approved for the CIA and Guantanamo and moved to Iraq with the Guantanamo General before you dismiss government policy playing a big part in Abu Ghraib.

9:54 am January 5, 2008

Taliban yes, army recruiters no wrote:

It's OK to have the Taliban on campus, not OK to have army recruiters. That's the agenda of the hate America lawyers. Shame on you liberal lawyers. I spit on you.

9:56 am January 5, 2008

yoo hoo wrote:

Keep our secrets secret. We're at war, you knuckleheads.

9:59 am January 5, 2008

DBL wrote:

Dear Reasonable,

Gitmo is not a prison for criminals. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with incarceration there. It is holding combatants captured on the field of battle. They can be held for the duration of the war, and this war, like many others in history (the 100 Years War, e.g.) could go on for a long time. Whether or not carrying a gun in Afghanistan or training in an Taliban camp in Afghanistan violated some American law is irrelevant.

12:39 pm January 5, 2008

M M wrote:

DBL, I'm all for keeping terrorists in prison (or executing them if proven guilty) but what's the process for reviewing whether a guy is truly a terrorist/combatant or some guy that annoyed a neighboring villager who then got paid cash for telling us the guy was Taliban? I'd love to get cash for turning in some of my annoying neighbors (especially if they'd never find out it was me or challenge me in court). Is it just too f'ing bad for people we jail wrongly and indefinitely without ever charging them with anything or giving them an ability to challenge evidence against them? How does that system, which is transparently Un-American, help us with the millions of Muslims NOT in Gitmo who can either help us, stand idly by, or hurt us in the future?

It's not about giving rights to terrorists it's about projecting American values around the world. And let's try and execute those we can prove to be terrorists in Gitmo.

1:30 pm January 5, 2008

David wrote:

Some of you guys should play Warcraft online. You see the same dialogue between Alliance and the Horde. Those "factions" are as artificial as the "real world" ones. Many seem not to be able to see out of the box. We need to be able to see the ship in the harbor, and not see just clouds. Right?

2:31 pm January 5, 2008

Geoff. Waterhouse wrote:

"Liberty and Justice for ALL?!" What a load of rubbish. I wish I could find any lawyer to act for me "Pro Bono," or even on a "Contingent Fee" basis and I have a cast iron case. I read with interest the various comments on this "blog." It is interesting how few "names" there are attached to the comments. I wonder why that is, could it be they writers don't have "the courage of their comments?" I would be more than happy if Mr. Freiman, or someone like him, would offer to help my son and I take on the people and media who lied about us, destroyed our business and reputations and then got off "scot free" when they eventually found out who really was guilty. 2 of the main culprits were a lying politician, who is also a lawyer (surperise, surprise) and a lying District Attorney (not Nifong this time) who is, of course, another lawyer. "Liberty and justice for SOME!"

2:59 pm January 5, 2008

David Steele, Lawyer wrote:

Padilla. Guilty in a Federal District Court by a jury. And now YLS (and Padilla)wants a government apology. Padilla must not be looking for an acceptance of responsibility downward departure.

5:36 pm January 5, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

MM, under the rules of war, someone not in uniform fighting against a uniformed army can be executed on the spot as an unlawful combatant. You are right that there needs to be some checks on the few innocent Afghanis that were rounded up by the Northern Alliance for bounties, but many of them (including some who actually did turn out to be terrorists) have been returned, with a few exceptions. We could have just killed them and, if they turned out to be innocent, chaulked them up to "collateral damage". That, after all, is what the U.S. and every other country has done in every past war. War, after all, isn't pretty and innocents get killed in them all the time. That's why rules such as "you must wear a uniform" evolved.
.
As for your point about people in Iran, the analogy doesn't follow. Madagascar in 1700 and Afghanistan in 2000 were "outlaw" states in the very old sense of the word: outside the law in that there was no law or real sovereign authority. Iran is not a lawless state, just a hostile one. As you know, Madagascar became a pirate center in the late 1600s because it was not governed by anybody (under international norms, pirate attacks based from your territory are imputed to your government). Afghanistan in 2000 was also lawless, which is why it became a base for terrorists. I'm sure there were quite a few spies from different governments in Afghanistan in 2000, and maybe even a few undercover journalists and maybe one or two human rights workers. But, for the most part, foreigners there were attracted by the promise of radical Islamic teachings in the various madrases. After all, there are plenty of madrases in other parts of the world, most of which are far more accessible and not under UN sanctions. So, the presumption must be that a non-Afghani found in Afghanistan in 2002 was up to no good. Clearly a rebuttable presumption, but a valid presumption nonetheless.

6:09 pm January 5, 2008

Go Yoo! wrote:

The best part about this whole mess is that once the complaint against Yoo is dismissed CNN & the NYT(Al Jazeera Lite) will ignore that fact and do an op-ed commending the courage of the Yalees who brought this Rule 11 violating claim. Go Yoo!

7:32 pm January 5, 2008

M M wrote:

5:36, we'll never know if that presumption or other evidence against detainees is valid or not because there is little to no due process for combatant status reviews. The Kangaroo Courts we created make us look more like the Soviet or North Korean judicial systems we used to mock.

We should be projecting the strength of our values and institutions and instead we signal weakness by our bloviating and legal scheming. To those that would argue we can't win a war on extremists ONLY with our values I would agree as well.

where's Tort Reform on this post. Funny that someone is wasting taxpayer dollars by filing a lawsuit for nothing more than political reasons (indeed, the damages requested are $1), and yet Tort Reform stays silent. Total loss of credibility (though, I never much thought highly of him anyway).

5:44 am January 6, 2008

www.laserhaas.wordpress.com wrote:

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right, tah DUH!

11:57 am January 6, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

Yoo's poorly reasoned and wrongly concluded legal opinion's justifying torture are a crime against the profession. It was an egregious lapse of all ethical responsibility. This case belongs in front of the BAR.

George Bush's authorization of torture is a crime against humanity, the Constitutional remedy for which is impeachment.

12:00 pm January 6, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

Any lawsuit out of Yale is a political rant. What a bunch of idiots.

1:48 pm January 6, 2008

M M wrote:

I agree with last point. Any lawsuit or legal justification for torture out a Yale law schoool grad or professor is a farce.

Look, people at Yale never learned to not be morons, so its not their fault that they filed the stupidest law on earth.

But Yoo, at some point, was taught not to justify evil by a quirky reading of the constitution.

So, on balance, Yoo loses.

9:52 am January 7, 2008

Proposed Deposition wrote:

I think Yoo should be deposed in this case, using his torture memo as a guide for techniques to be used during the deposition.

11:37 am January 7, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

Yale should be sanctioned for this lawsuit. If this kind of suit is accepted seriously, say hello to Americastan.

11:39 am January 7, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

Clarence Thomas is the only good thing to come out of YLS.

11:57 am January 7, 2008

nj wrote:

hey, anybody have a link to the Yoo memo at issue and an analysis as to why and how it "justif[ies] evil by a quirky reading of the constitution." I'm curious since my stat. interp. class's final exam was on precisely this issue, but with heavily edited background material.

1:29 pm January 7, 2008

DBL wrote:

MM - Is it your view that any out-of-uniform German captured in France during WWII, and held as a combatant, had a right to a civil trial to determine whether or not he was a combatant or an innocent German tourist? What's the difference between that and Gitmo?

1:37 pm January 7, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

you don't realize it but all the people at Gitmo are innocent goatherds turned in by rival tribesman. of course, I can't account for why that has not led to the entire population of Afghanistan being there instead of only the 500 odd or less that have been held there. in addition, aren't you aware that the most noble thing a lawyer can do is represent a convicted terrorist who would happily destroy this country. the fact that you can then put it in a press release to help get Middle Eastern retainers never crosses the mind of any of the lawyers, either.

3:03 pm January 7, 2008

M M wrote:

DBL, last time I checked we weren't at war with Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Uzbekistan, Iran or other countries which might have people in Afghanistan (much as we may not like those some of those countries). Unless you are making a new law that it is illegal to travel to a foreign country (and that we as an external power have a unilateral and unchallenged right to enforce it), you might need actual proof that these people did something against the law and there has to be some legal review of that evidence. By your logic we should lock away, with no due process, every foreigner in Iraq today--they must be up to no good. Why can't Sudan or North Korea lock away every American in their countries without providing proof of wrongdoing and due process?

3:17 pm January 7, 2008

DBL wrote:

MM,

You haven't answered my question.

4:12 pm January 7, 2008

M M wrote:

While I usually don't respond to red herrings, I did answer your question. We are not at war with the countries of origin for those foreigners we picked up in Afghanistan like your tortured analogy of Germans in WWII France. You claim we have the right to detain any foreigner in Afghanistan under the assumption they must be up to no good. Contrary to that personal belief, being a foreigner in Afghanistan is not a crime. We are more like the Soviets and North Koreans if we can't come up with and defend evidence that these individuals are combatants. I didn't take you for a communist.

4:20 pm January 7, 2008

M M wrote:

Sorry DBL, Anonymous argued they could be detained just for being a foreigner in Afghanistan which is what I was responding to previously. My rebutal to your WWII analogy stands though.

11:49 am January 8, 2008

DBL wrote:

MM,

Perhaps we can narrow the area of disagreement.

I think we can agree that if the US Army captures someone on the battlefield in Afghanistan (or elsewhere) with a weapon in his hands, it can hold him for the duration of hostilities. Guilt or innocence are irrelevant, as is the citizenship of the captured combatant, and we let the Army, and not civilian courts, deal with prisoners it captures on the battlefield.

I think the same rules should apply to any AQ personnel captured in Afghanistan, whether on or off the battlefield, regardless of their citizenship, whether with or without a weapon in their hands, but you might or might not disagree with that. I can see the arguments for allowing a somewhat broader scope for such prisoners to argue that they were in fact just tourists passing through, with no ties to AQ. IMHO, military courts are adequate to make such determinations, which again, have nothing to do with guilt or innocence under American law.

I think what has you upset is the idea that US forces can capture AQ members in places where there is no open warfare - say in Europe or the US - and hold them indefinitely as illegal combatants. I agree that presents a conundrum.

But how about this: acting on a tip from a foreign source, the US fires a remote missile at a car in the Arabian desert someplace filled with senior AQ ops. Is that lawful? (I note, parenthetically, that's what Sen. Obama promises to do if he were president.) If the US instead sends troops to capture them, can they only be held if they are read their Miranda rights, interrogated with counsel present, and convicted of violating some US law? Is there a difference between covert ops in a place with real police forces (Europe) and semi-lawless places (the Afghan Kush, the Arabian desert)?

Does it violate American law for foreigners to meet in a foreign country and plan terrorist/military action against American or allied personnel and or property located overseas? I'm not at all sure that it does or could, and I don't think that the inability of the law to protect the US against foreign enemies should be a reason to do nothing.

Other, deeper thinkers have suggested new ways of thinking about the current problems - special terrorist courts, etc. - and maybe the Congress should explore those possiblities.

12:38 pm January 8, 2008

M M wrote:

Detaining folks with guns shooting at us is clearly valid (one could argue we could have permanantly locked up half the an-bar Sunnis we are now relying on under this premise). However, how do you define "battlefield" in a place like Afghanistan? If I was a villager in Afghanistan it would be prudent for me to own an AK-47 to protect myself from AQ. Let's say there wasn't shooting going on in the village, does the fact that I have a gun make me AQ? Not necessarily.

Killing/detaining the higher up, known AQ leaders is clearly fine. What about at the lower levels? How do you know someone is a lower level AQ or just some villager if they aren't shooting at you or caught with a known AQ person (whether they are Afghan or not)? Military combatant reviews would be fine to determine this if they didn't stack the deck "Soviet style" against the accused detainee (not being able to review and challenge the evidence against them). If they changed that to provide some level of due process than that would be a step in the right direction. I think special terrorist courts (assuming the basic steps they use are reviewed and judged to be fair) may be an option as well for these and other cases which require some degree of secrecy. I am assuming there is some legal standard for ordering a strike on suspected terrorist leaders based on intel received which would determine whether such a strike was lawful or not.

Contrary to what people may perceive from this discussion, I believe we should have MORE special ops troops and intel agents in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But if our words about democracy don't match how we practice it (with one aspect being our legal institutions) we give our enemies another tool to use against us and we turn off key moderate Muslim support. Moreover, I think doing so is unnecessary if the Bush administration wouldn't have been so obstinate. Truly self-inflicted.

Reasonable people can come up with reasonable solutions to these unique national security and legal issues which protects the country explicitly in support of the warfighting effort and implicitly by reinforcing (correcting at this point) the projection of American values to key audiences abroad.

10:20 am January 9, 2008

William H. White wrote:

Okay, it's a weak suit. Then what can be done about the government using baseless legal opinions to violate the law? And if the YL suit deserves such outrage, then what about government torture?

11:17 pm January 9, 2008

DBL wrote:

MM,

If you are still checking on this thread, thank you, your comments are thoughtful and well considered.

Indeed, I don't think anything you've said would be offensive to anyone in the Administration ( although I say that in complete ignorance, since I know no one who works in the White House). these are dangerous times and in some ways unique (in prior eras, non-state actors did not present the threat of mass destruction that they potentially can today) but I believe that if we put partisan politics aside we can find ways to deal with these threats that are both consistent with our traditions and effective.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

Must Reads

Plaintiffs' lawyers dodged a bullet last year when the U.S. Supreme Court spared a quarter-century-old precedent that had served as the legal linchpin of the modern investor class-action case. Despite that win, a new report suggests that securities class actions have lost some of their firepower.

In a week in which images of Prophet Muhammad were connected to acts of terror and defiant expressions of freedom, a sculpture of the prophet of Islam inside the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn little notice.

The salacious allegations against Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz that surfaced in a federal lawsuit involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have generated international attention. Drawing less coverage is the lawsuit itself -- a case with the potential to expand the rights of crime victims during federal investigations.